ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

disallowance of ₹ 81,405/- out of expenses. No addition was made towards excess investments given in the TEP. We have deleted the addition of ₹4.00 lakh in an earlier para by holding the same as not sustainable for the year under consideration. 6. Section 147 of the Act provides that: “If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

disallowance of ₹ 81,405/- out of expenses. No addition was made towards excess investments given in the TEP. We have deleted the addition of ₹4.00 lakh in an earlier para by holding the same as not sustainable for the year under consideration. 6. Section 147 of the Act provides that: “If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 36(1)(viii) w.e.f. 01.04.1998 whereby assessee alongwith creation of reserve was also required to maintain the said reserve. A corresponding amendment was also brought to section 41(4A) which reads as under: “41(4A). where a deduction has been allowed in respect of any special reserve created and maintained under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of Section

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

section along with corresponding amendment u/s.41(1A) which are effective from Assessment Year 1998-99. Assessee had explained this aspect before the ld. Assessing Officer by clarifying that special reserve had been created over the years out of the profits and “Special Reserve No. I Account” relates to amount which had been transferred up to financial year 1997-98. Thus

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowed the same, treating it as capital expenditure. Ld. CIT(A) justified the view taken by ld. Assessing Officer. 18. 2. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the time of issue of the security i.e., FCCB was in the nature of a bond and not an equity share. Accordingly, expenditure incurred should be allowed as revenue

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Disallowance of FCCB issue expenses. 18. This issue arises in the following appeals: Assessment year Ground No. in Assessee's appeal Ground No. in Revenue's appeal 2007-08 3 - 18. 1. During the relevant year, assessee had incurred expenses of Rs.8,66,200/- in connection with issue of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB) for which deduction was claimed

DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY OXYGEN CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) in accordance with the decision of the Special Bench (supra) 9. The second and last issue in the appeal of the Revenue is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer does not have any relevant circumstances for referring the matter to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Section 57(iii) and find that ld. \nUnder the said section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n53 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

disallowance u/s.36(1)(viii) and 14A on the interest\ncomponent relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend\nincome have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of\nsuch interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations\nand findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt\nelaborately in the above paragraphs

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground so raised for Assessment \nYear 2004-05 is dismissed as infructuous

disallowed \nin the computation of total income, it was claimed as a deduction by \n\n50 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\nway of notes forming part of the same. There is no discussion with \nrespect to this issue in the assessment order for AY 2002-03. However, \nld. CIT(A) upheld

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED (MERGED ENTITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below:\n\nSr

disallowance u/s.36(1)(viii) and 14A on the interest \ncomponent relating to the investments in shares which yielded dividend \nincome have been made out of owned funds and therefore, no part of \nsuch interest expenditure is allocable on this account. Our observations \nand findings on this aspect are not repeated here as already dealt \nelaborately in the above paragraphs